Rating: 
Summary: A readable, essential book.
Review: A number of excellent books address the technological and philosophical questions posed by artificial intelligence, but this book goes beyond those discussions to envision a post-human era in which the world has been relinquished, more or less willingly, to minds not subject to either the physical or mental frailties of our species. Although the treatment is popular and fast-paced, I did not find it superficial. It appears that Nietzsche's Overman, which he imagined as a carbon-based result of Lamarckian evolution, will emerge as something very different.
Rating:
Summary: Mind boggling
Review: An excellent piece of scientific speculation. Witty and irreverent, learned and fascinating. If you thought Moravec was nuts...! One of my favourite books. Buy now!
Rating: 
Summary: Less Filling
Review: Earl Cox, who also peddles his magical machine vision on radio talk shows, is selling us a large bill of goods in this book, with exciting but ultimately meaningless statements like "downloading your brain into cyberspace"...etc. A close read of his book from a non-materialistic standpoint reveals major assumptions that simply do not hold up to close scrutiny. 1) First, technology does not just "keep developing" faster and faster in some sort of self generating way. Technology is developed for a particular purpose, to solve a problem, to make thing smaller, faster, etc., and is developed in a specific economic and social environment, within which it has to make sense. Much of the type of intelligent machine that Cox discusses make little sense in these terms, despite the fact that he keeps insisting that technology will develop in directons we can't imagine, wrong, we imagine the direction of technological direction, period. Who is going to pay for all these wonderful machines that we will make? 2) Second, throughout the book there appears to be a simplistic assumption or analogy at work throughout the book: mind/body - software/hardware. It is this analogy that fuels. Mr. Cox seems simplistically enamored of modern technology, and oos and aas constantly about our ability to manipulate the atom, create body parts, characterize the human genome, etc. all while half the world is illiterate and millions die of starvation daily. He seems completely fooled by technolopolist propaganda, i.e., all problems can be solved by technology, technology has the answers, his belief in this is akin to a religious belief. But we have many instances of great scientific and technological "advances" that mostly create greater problems than they solve--has Cox been to some of our uncountable nuclear waste sites, the unhappy reminders of our conquering of the atom, and when will that next nuclear power plant be built? Closer to home, it now appears that cloning produces animals with something less than perfect genetic material, in fact, their survival prospects are pretty bleak. And what about the possibility that our pursuit of technological fixes could lead to the total destruction of the ecosystem, humankind, etc.? Mr. Cox hopes that first we will have built machines that could survive such a catastrophe... 3) Sadly Cox is a total materialist, a position which gives his whole edifice a feeling of unreality from the get go, soul-less as it is. The simple question why do this? Why do that? Comes up frequently. Cox has not more sophisticated answer than, well the technology is there, we will keep devloping it ad infinitum. 4) The kinds of machine derived "improvements" that Cox apotheosizes, faster information processing, tireless ability to monitor and calculate, etc. are only a small fraction of the totality of human expression, development, etc. and are wholly external. The term intelligence is used as if there is one measure of intelligence, when in fact there are many, and machines that we create typically only are able to do a single thing very very well, yes better than we can do it but usually because we wouldnt be suited to do it, it would be boring, etc. not because we can't do it. 5) Cox, not suprisiingly, ignores completely, the real locus of human development, not manipulating the external world, but cultivating the inner world.....
Rating:
Summary: Less Filling
Review: Earl Cox, who also peddles his magical machine vision on radio talk shows, is selling us a large bill of goods in this book, with exciting but ultimately meaningless statements like "downloading your brain into cyberspace"...etc. A close read of his book from a non-materialistic standpoint reveals major assumptions that simply do not hold up to close scrutiny. 1) First, technology does not just "keep developing" faster and faster in some sort of self generating way. Technology is developed for a particular purpose, to solve a problem, to make thing smaller, faster, etc., and is developed in a specific economic and social environment, within which it has to make sense. Much of the type of intelligent machine that Cox discusses make little sense in these terms, despite the fact that he keeps insisting that technology will develop in directons we can't imagine, wrong, we imagine the direction of technological direction, period. Who is going to pay for all these wonderful machines that we will make? 2) Second, throughout the book there appears to be a simplistic assumption or analogy at work throughout the book: mind/body - software/hardware. It is this analogy that fuels. Mr. Cox seems simplistically enamored of modern technology, and oos and aas constantly about our ability to manipulate the atom, create body parts, characterize the human genome, etc. all while half the world is illiterate and millions die of starvation daily. He seems completely fooled by technolopolist propaganda, i.e., all problems can be solved by technology, technology has the answers, his belief in this is akin to a religious belief. But we have many instances of great scientific and technological "advances" that mostly create greater problems than they solve--has Cox been to some of our uncountable nuclear waste sites, the unhappy reminders of our conquering of the atom, and when will that next nuclear power plant be built? Closer to home, it now appears that cloning produces animals with something less than perfect genetic material, in fact, their survival prospects are pretty bleak. And what about the possibility that our pursuit of technological fixes could lead to the total destruction of the ecosystem, humankind, etc.? Mr. Cox hopes that first we will have built machines that could survive such a catastrophe... 3) Sadly Cox is a total materialist, a position which gives his whole edifice a feeling of unreality from the get go, soul-less as it is. The simple question why do this? Why do that? Comes up frequently. Cox has not more sophisticated answer than, well the technology is there, we will keep devloping it ad infinitum. 4) The kinds of machine derived "improvements" that Cox apotheosizes, faster information processing, tireless ability to monitor and calculate, etc. are only a small fraction of the totality of human expression, development, etc. and are wholly external. The term intelligence is used as if there is one measure of intelligence, when in fact there are many, and machines that we create typically only are able to do a single thing very very well, yes better than we can do it but usually because we wouldnt be suited to do it, it would be boring, etc. not because we can't do it. 5) Cox, not suprisiingly, ignores completely, the real locus of human development, not manipulating the external world, but cultivating the inner world.....
Rating:
Summary: The most incredible book I have ever read.
Review: Extinction of Homo Sapiens within the next 200 years? Due to the same species *merging* with its own technology and vanishing in a puff of cyber smoke? Yes, that is what is going to happen. This book describes it all in detail using rational arguments and extrapolations. If you're confused by where we're all heading, then read this book and become thorougly enlightened.
Laurence Vanhelsuwe (Software engineer)
Rating:
Summary: Where are we going?
Review: Foretelling the future, once the realm of mystics and entrail pullers, is now a subject of serious scientific study. Paul and Cox offer us a rational and plausible scenario of what the future holds for humanity. With backgrounds in biology and computer engineering, they've combined to bring competence to an enduring question: Where are we going? You may not like their view of the road ahead, but it's impossible to ignore their forecast. Their arguments focus on developments in neurosciences and computing power. They foresee a merger of these two disciplines resulting in the creation of a new humanity capable of engineering new, immortal physical brain carriers - bodies. Bodies themselves, as any gene can verify, are of minor importance. They are in essential agreement with Richard Dawkins that the selfish gene, in replicating itself, casts off the brain/mind of its host and losing whatever that mind has accumulated during its life. Their forecast is that the brain, using cybernetic technologies, will be able to avoid that waste by taking control of what DNA does during its thoughtless replication activity. This is a momentous proposal, worthy of serious consideration. The so- called 'moral' issues of whether humanity should engage in such activity, aren't shrugged off. Paul and Cox contend that there will be Rejectionists who will refused the option of cyberevolution and remain mortal. They suggest the Rejectionists will remain the chief source of art, music and other more diverse roles in life. We are left unclear as to how diverse the cyberhumans will become. The authors argue that the cyberhumans will be the ones to populate other planets, finding their diversity in response to new environments. The only real flaw in this book is ignoring the power of DNA in driving our lives and society. Whether we will ever understand the workings of DNA sufficiently to actually create a wide range of individuals remains problematic. The individual who first successfully transforms into a cyberhuman will set a pattern more likely to be repeated than modified. To create discrete cyber-individuals will be tremendously resource extravagant. This is likely lead to a narrow range of available DNA to launch the cyberpopulation. As we have already experienced with the shrinking gene pool of crop seeds, such a reduced variety is highly vulnerable to virus assault. An organism that succeeds in infecting such a limited diversity can quickly wipe out the whole cyberhuman population. Modifying the gene pool to resist such an infestation will take more resources and the Rejectionists will again be successful survivors through their genetic diversity. This flaw, however powerful, doesn't detract from the significant questions raised and developed in this compelling book. If you wonder about the future, if you think computers are only for entertainment, if you think humans are the logical end of evolution, then buy and read this fascinating book.
Rating:
Summary: Where are we going?
Review: Foretelling the future, once the realm of mystics and entrail pullers, is now a subject of serious scientific study. Paul and Cox offer us a rational and plausible scenario of what the future holds for humanity. With backgrounds in biology and computer engineering, they've combined to bring competence to an enduring question: Where are we going? You may not like their view of the road ahead, but it's impossible to ignore their forecast. Their arguments focus on developments in neurosciences and computing power. They foresee a merger of these two disciplines resulting in the creation of a new humanity capable of engineering new, immortal physical brain carriers - bodies. Bodies themselves, as any gene can verify, are of minor importance. They are in essential agreement with Richard Dawkins that the selfish gene, in replicating itself, casts off the brain/mind of its host and losing whatever that mind has accumulated during its life. Their forecast is that the brain, using cybernetic technologies, will be able to avoid that waste by taking control of what DNA does during its thoughtless replication activity. This is a momentous proposal, worthy of serious consideration. The so- called 'moral' issues of whether humanity should engage in such activity, aren't shrugged off. Paul and Cox contend that there will be Rejectionists who will refused the option of cyberevolution and remain mortal. They suggest the Rejectionists will remain the chief source of art, music and other more diverse roles in life. We are left unclear as to how diverse the cyberhumans will become. The authors argue that the cyberhumans will be the ones to populate other planets, finding their diversity in response to new environments. The only real flaw in this book is ignoring the power of DNA in driving our lives and society. Whether we will ever understand the workings of DNA sufficiently to actually create a wide range of individuals remains problematic. The individual who first successfully transforms into a cyberhuman will set a pattern more likely to be repeated than modified. To create discrete cyber-individuals will be tremendously resource extravagant. This is likely lead to a narrow range of available DNA to launch the cyberpopulation. As we have already experienced with the shrinking gene pool of crop seeds, such a reduced variety is highly vulnerable to virus assault. An organism that succeeds in infecting such a limited diversity can quickly wipe out the whole cyberhuman population. Modifying the gene pool to resist such an infestation will take more resources and the Rejectionists will again be successful survivors through their genetic diversity. This flaw, however powerful, doesn't detract from the significant questions raised and developed in this compelling book. If you wonder about the future, if you think computers are only for entertainment, if you think humans are the logical end of evolution, then buy and read this fascinating book.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting speculation, but....
Review: I bought this book based on the almost uniformly positive reviews here. I was disappointed. The thesis is mind-bending and interesting, but the arguments are sloppy, unreferenced, ignore major issues, and go into great detail about secondary ramifications. And in the even more speculative later chapters, the authors slip into ridiculing anyone who doesn't "get it."
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: I found them contradicting themselves. There were no cited sources in book.. They try to imply that the know everything.
Rating:
Summary: Blank Minds
Review: I found them contradicting themselves. There were no cited sources in book.. They try to imply that the know everything.
|
